Meanwhile, in Adelaide, December 17, Defence Minister Marise Payne indicated/implied to industry insiders that the 2016 Defence White Paper, which will frame many submarine issues, will be released in early 2016. No submarine contender is likely to be chosen until after the 2016 Australian Federal Elections.

PETE'S COMMENT

The Turnbull Government would lose votes if it indicated which States or electorates would Not be involved in the submarine build. So instead the Government can imply, before the Election that all may benefit. The hard decisions of saying which contender wins (which in turn favours the Australian companies the contender has formed alliances with) are best made after the Election.

In Australia elections typically fall in the Southern Hemisphere Spring (the weather is warm and people positive). The most popular month is September - see Background on Next Australian Federal Election. Turnbull is a popular leader, whose Liberal National Party Coalition is very likely to hang on to power.

South Australia seems the most expectant and sensitive State on this issue. Hence all three contenders have rolled out promises that they will make Adelaide a submarine building and maintenance hub. After the Elections the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) a small submarine fixated party from South Australia, may become more powerful, at the expense of the Turnbull Government.

It was easy to pick Japan as the winning contender when Abbott ruled, but under Turnbull the winner is a well kept secret. Either that or the Australian Government (and the US) have simply not decided yet.

Personally, i think they will get the subs build in toto with the best any other State can hope for being some amount of component build. SA to keep deep maintenance and W.A. the less intense maintenance rounds. Frigates and Patrol boats not so much as the Govt HAS to share some of the goodies around. W.A. to get the patrol boats, and Victoria a substantial share of the Frigates work.

If i had to put money on the subs supplier, i'd go TKMS. Looking at it broadly, from my reading on the options, i think it would get us, more reliably at less risk, a more capable and versatile boat than the Soryu derivative, AND a long lived, very significant local industrial capability in place. THAT means sophisticated manufacturing jobs in country with a training capability for those type of jobs that could be of broader significance. Would be a big spin off in terms of getting better value into the economy for our Defence $ spend.

Sharing the sub and shipbuilding work among the States will prevent Adelaide overcharging like a sheltered workshop. I think Adelaide is "bidding" for the lot knowing it might just get half.

The politicians are sure to divy up the work as they all have their own State-Electorate interests to service.

The power demands of the future sub's combat system may pretty much mean any AIP is inadequate during the critical operational phase of missions. As advanced AIP may be TKMS's greatest strength - it may not have that competitive advantage.

Japan with LIBs and no reliance on AIP may have an advantage.

Meanwhile a possible evolution from Shortfin SSK to Barracuda SSN may be the major (unstated) DCNS pitch. The US designed Combat System is better slaved to reactor power levels.

Intelligence & Submarine Matters

This website analyses international trends, technical and political - mainly on submarines, sometimes on surface ships, aircraft, missiles and their nuclear warheads. Also how the above interrelates to intelligence concepts more broadly. The best way to navigate this site is to put a keyword in the search box top left corner.